On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:37 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There are two errata reports against RFC 7484, both in status > "reported" > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7484&rec_status=15). > Part of the requirements for advancing a document to Internet Standard > is to address all errata reports against the original document. On a > superficial reading of the diff from RFC 7484 to this document it does > appear that changes are included that would address these two errata > reports, but that should probably be acknowledged in the text, and the > responsible AD should use the RFC Editor's errata tool to process the > reports accordingly. > The errata have been marked as "Verified". -MSK
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
